Rowing with the Wind (1988)

Best movie of this year hands down!

People are voting emotionally.

How sad is this?

Highly Overrated But Still Good

I thought this was a very interesting take on Mary Shelley's Frankenstein and the people and history surrounding it's creation. It's slow but worth the wait, beautifully filmed. Hugh Grant and Valentine Pelka do a fine job. Thankfully there is less of Grant's girlfriend of the time, Liz Hurley. She should stick to modeling. The use of the monster as an omen of death is very interesting.I didn't really know much about the life of Shelley or Byron before this movie. Be aware there is some nudity, but it is not what I would consider gratuitous. I looked it up. Shelley really would walk around his house nude. He even answered the door once with no clothes.The locations are absolutely fabulous. I so want to tour Europe and stay everywhere this was filmed.I really loved the music and wish there was somewhere with a more detailed list of the pieces used. There is a list of the composers in the credits, but they all wrote a lot of music. Which Beethoven piano sonata? Which Mozart? You could spend a lot of time trying to find the music. There is no soundtrack released that I am aware of so you're out of luck if you want to listen to the music in the car. If you can get the DVD or VHS on sale, worth it. But I wouldn't pay full price.

This film has promise that is never fulfilled. Curly-topped Hugh Grant as Lord Byron has to be seen to be believed. He wears the frilliest costumes imaginable. With long hair and chest bared, he looks like he's auditioning for a Lifetime biopic of Siegfried and Roy. One of the best (and unintentionally comical) scenes is Grant howling out on a boat. He is too fey and whimsical to make a credible Byron.Another newcomer is a furry-browed, heavier set Elizabeth Hurley. She is beautiful. Yet, like Grant, she isn't ready for prime time. The scene where her sister, Mary, consoles her following a suicide is funny due to Hurley's exaggerated facial expressions.The music labors on to new melodramatic Gothic depths. Music can enhance an atmosphere when the atmosphere is right. When it isn't, music only makes for another distraction.The monster speaks in staccato. Due to editing, it's difficult to determine if he's a villain or victim. Sometimes it's difficult to determine if he even is.

After watching this film, I thought to myself that it was an interesting film, and there were individual scenes which were strong. However, the pacing seemed to be a bit off, and somehow the flow of the film didn't feel right. Then, I noticed that the version I saw was 95 minutes long, while the original version was 126 minutes long. That's thirty whole minutes cut! As far as I'm concerned, this is criminal! Obviously, Miramax re-released this film during early 1999 in order to cash in on Hugh Grant and Elizabeth Hurley. In the process, they cut the film to shreds, and perhaps rearranged the scenes around to make it more "coherent."

This was amongst the worst films I have ever encountered. The cinematography was dull, with long tedious shots (like a camera on a tripod filming a stage play) interspersed with "dramatic" angles that made little sense to the content on screen. The editing was terrible, scenes matched together with the delicacy of a butcher. The plot hinged on the viewer being familiar with the historical night in which Mary Shelley wrote frankenstien. The acting was forced, with the type of character development that left you with an intense interest in seeing each of them die horribly (the sooner the better).